Thank you, Father, for these wonderful presentations. If the commenters get ridiculous and out of hand, feel free to shut down all comments. The faithful will still find the presentations, and enjoy them. God bless you and our Church.
Actually it is the sacrifice of Calvary which is the mark of our salvation. Jesus instituted it and as we know if Satan is divided against himself he can not stand. As for indoctrinization: You are just as guilty, you are taught how to interperate the bible in a flawed man made way with flawed man made theology (Martin Luther). Bottom line: Protestantism is un-Biblical and you are too blind to see that.
Hi there sniffy. I see we have bdplst over here, disguising himself as a secret agent and calling himself oamission. He forgot to make an omission of all his capital letters, so his disguise didn't work, poor bdplister!
Now at least we know that he did not get lost, or that the little old ladies he tried to sneak up on with his bull horn didn't turn around and give him a fatal whack with their umbrellas. To think that all this time we were worried that he was overcome by el swino!
I don't see the point to continue this discussion. I don't find it very edifying. If you are just interested in an argument then please start one elsewhere. I think you have adequately stated your position and given ample evidence that you are not receptive to any logical arguments or evidence to the contrary. So this is the end you are now blocked.
2 PT 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are SOME things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And are the UNlearned & UNstable ALL outside your Church?
Arent you forcing your beliefs into the PLAIN TEXT?
LOOK being unlearned or unstable or DULL of HEARing does not mean the scriptures "GET DISTORTED" the DISTORTION is inside the nature of the distortEE of which I believe you just might yourself be engaging in such
The unlearned unstable & DULL of Hearing are in nature "distorted" and force beliefs into the text at their own peril
Dear bdplist: What is "biblios" was given to ALL Christians as a result of the Catholic Councils of Tunis and Carthage. It is a free gift! God's Word which thw Church safeguarded. She alone has the authority to interperet the bible. If youare stuck on the error of Sola Scriptora read: the following: (cont...)
What is interesting about this is if the negative argument is true, then the Holy Spirit would have to be considered incompetent in directing God's Church for almost 1500 years until NONBELIEF in the Eucharist began to become fashionable.
The Church claims no authority to invent dogma... just the authority to defend when doubts creep in.
When Jesus told the multitude "unless you eat my flesh..." many walked away. He did not say "hey wait... come back... I was using figurative speech"!
I have an evangelical friend who used to make some of these same negative arguments I've seen here. Once he and I began to delve into the writings of the very early "Early Church Fathers", my friend began to admit that he had to abandon the false notion that belief in the Real Presence was a recent novelty. Quite the contrary he admitted!
Any serious reading of the Early Church Fathers reveals that the "People of the Way", later known as Kathos ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE this.
I highly recommend that folks read the fathers. BUT I find that people just talk of actually reading they in fact just cut N paste fathers remarks taken sometimes even out of the immediate context of the surrounding sentences.
BY READING
ONE POINT immediately & clearly comes to the forefront
There absolutely is NO UNIVERSAL CONSENT of the fathers!
St. Ignatius: "[heretics] abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ..."
St. Justin Martyr:"...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these;but...as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnated Jesus."
St. Irenaeus: "He has declared the cup, a part of His creation, to be His Own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His Own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
St. Cyril: "He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body', who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood' who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?
Saint Cyril: "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ".
Please read the Church Fathers, and please read the Scriptures with an open heart. I will pray for you.
"I" don't go from blood to wine; Jesus does. And he continues to do so- every day at Holy Masses throughout the entire world through the annointed hands of Holy Catholic priests. He said it himself. I feel very sorry for you that you need to see everything or have "evidence" to believe. It's so simple, yet a mystery. Pray for faith and humility. See hammingdad's quote- St Peter- the Bible can be hard to understand and so we have the Church to solve disputes over meaning. Peace be with you.
"NO UNIVERSAL CONSENT of the fathers!" But that is why need the magesterium as well. Bible, Tradition (Fathers), and the Magesterium. These are the three pillars of the Church. When there is an argument among two great churchmen then the Magesterium sorts this out.
hey, it's common internet parlance to not use caps when typing. it's universally considered a shout, which is how you are clearly intending to use all caps. bring this down three notches so 1) you can hear yourself and 2) you can get your point across with less adrenaline. intensity doesn't make your point any clearer.
Instead, what we teach is that the Popes and Councils are merely infallible, that if they did, in fact, attempt to make a binding doctrinal statement that did not agree with Christ's doctrine then God would prevent them from doing so. He would not correct deficiencies in style or clarity nor necessarily push them into action even if two groups holding differing opinions were arguing for centuries. Impeccability is proactive infallibility is merely preventative.
In general I would say that your basic misunderstanding is that you are assuming that infallibility means impeccability. If councils and Popes were impeccable then, indeed, there would be no room for discussion because their decrees would have come out perfectly on time at the beginning of the disputes or even before they started and they would perfectly foresee all future arguments and the wording would be perfect. Although God could have given the Popes this gift He did not.
The discussion had neither to do with Infallibility nor Impeccability.
The subject was the doctrins of the Roman Church were NOT a continuation nor a establishment of Apostolic teachings but were developed by a long process of mens traditions substituted for God's ways
I find that many of the "truths" of the Catholic church never even EXISTED for CENTURIES Thus how could they be the Tradition which the Apostles passed down?
By the way, bdlist, I do not see the point of your mocking tone and "LOL" and such. We prefer to keep the discussion on a more constructive, reverent and generally more Christian tone. Please refrain.
Priest Etymology: ME prest < OE preost (? with -o- by assoc. with profost, provost) < LL(Ec) presbyter, an elder < Gr presbyteros, elder, compar. of presbys, old, old man (in LGr(Ec), an elder). A priest is an elder a presbyter which is very Biblical.
Radbertus was the 1st to formulate the doctrine in the 9TH century. The Fourth Lateran Council, (12TH ecumenical council) in 1215 introduced the term TRANSUBSTANTIATION
The SEVEN SACRAMENTAL system was not initiated till the 12TH century and was not a permanent part of RCC until Council of Florence 1439AD
How important could all this be, if it was MIA for over 1000 years?
The EVOLUTION of RC doctrine is easy to see for those who have eyes.
Interesting how people ignore most church history and then make such grand claims.
If the 7 sacraments were invented in the 12th century, then why do all the Eastern Churches have all 7 too, in lands that were never part of the Roman Empire and were separated from the Roman Church for centuries beforehand, but all have apostolic continuity.
You clearly misreading or misinterpreting what it says... all the ancient Apostolic churches share the same basic beliefs about Creed, Sacraments, Mass, Morals, etc... The understanding of these things developed, but not the reality. It is clear that the early Christians of the first centuries celebrated a Mass similar to the one we still celebrate now.
What is CLEAR is that you have been indoctrinated.
Stop being ignorant it is well known there were centuries of rancor & dispute within the ranks of the ROMAN church till the council of TRENT somewhat settled the issue of Trans or consub
Discussion about theological details is not necessarily rancor... and I was trying to say that ALL the ancient Churches that have apostolic roots agree on this, NOT "just" Rome... most were separate from for about 1500 years now and they do not accept Trent, etc, yet they have 7 Sacraments... you are ignoring my argument and going back to your own.
If there were 7 sacraments in the ROMAN Church from the beginning What in the world was the council doing "discussing" the NUMBER of sacraments SIXTEEN CENTURIES LATER?
FACTS are stubborn things ROMANism is more PLIABLE!
"Council of Trent defined that the SEVEN SACRAMENTS of the new law were instituted by Christ This settles the question of fact for all CATholics" Cath Encyc XIII p298
Protestants were questioning, so there were need for definitive answers at that time. You misunderstand Catholic terminology and practice. Just as Christ was truly God and Man before a Council defined an answer to questions in that century, so also there were 7 Sacraments before another Council of Apostolic Successors who authoritatively answered another set of questions so much later.
"In tracing the history of the NUMERATION within the Church, we may distinguish four different stages. Till about the end of the fourth century, we find usually two, and sometimes three rites placed together as sacraments" Cath Dict p735
U were making that stuff up U had no proff just baseless claims
I make nothing up. Facts are truly important. And you keep referring to the Roman Church when I keep pointing to the witness of the other Ancient Churches. Every ancient Church that exists today from the first Millennium has apostolic succession, has the Eucharistic Liturgy (Mass), has 7 Sacraments, and has an understanding of the sacramental nature of the Church and the reality of the Communion of Saints. This unity of belief is amazing considering that we have been divided for so long.
You still have not considered and responded to my points, I'm waiting for you. Read the 2 posts (Protestants were questioning... and I make nothing up...) and think about what I'm saying there. And if you can discuss those points, then we can continue.
Where do you see "CLEAR" indoctrination here? Babcbag made a clear statement that all the Apostolic Churches have the Seven Sacraments. If you are not able address the facts then please leave the discussion. At the very least refrain from ad hominum attacks, "ignorant" and such.
Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Council of TRENT even had to FIX the DEFECTIVE language of Lateran IV
Here we see the church, entrusted with the teaching mission of Jesus, supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit in remaining faithful to true teaching disagreeing with one another and correcting the defective teaching!
It was not until AFTER 1551 that the "real presence" became common in RC theology
How is it that centuries of dispute finally brings forth a "REAL" presence?
Why did it take another 10 years XXI 1562 to determine that communion from the Chalace is not necessary for Salvation?
Why did the next THREE centuries bring forth one theory after another on whether it is REAL or mystical immutation & of oblation? Why did the Council FAIL to bring forth the INFALLIBLE answers to this DILEMA?
I think you need to go right to the beginning and follow it through.
1. Jesus said it , I believe Him.
2. the disciples who protested (the first protestants) refused to accept this doctrine (Eucharist) from Jesus and they left Him.
3. The Apostles believed though one didn't.
4. Saint Paul Believed,
5. The Chruch Fathers believed and many of them with the faithful gave their lives for this belief! (e.g. Saint Justin Martyr defended the truth about the Eucharist and was beheaded!)
RC are fond of immediately claiming victory & exhorting folks to admit the truth of the claims way too early in the conversation as NO PROOF has yet been offered. So too RC are very fond of entirely evading the nexus of any argument They therefore yield the very point being asserted and is admission of it's indefensibility!
3. Literalistic transubstantiation would imply Judas was a God-eating cannibalistic infidel who physically ate God IN the flesh and drank the blood of Jesus, CONSUMED God in whole- Body Soul & Spirit, Who had as then not yet died. Jesus would then (against His Own Word Lev 26:29 & De 28:53) have had to have given a piece of His flesh and siphoned off some of His blood for Judas's FAITHLESS consumption thereof!
And the "concept" (we are supposed to believe is TRUTH) was DISPUTED & DEBATED for CENTURIES in the RCC!
What took so long & what of the Magesterium?
The fact that MANY RCC beliefs were not found for so long proves conclusively they were never previously established beliefs in the RCC and thus the RCC did NOT establish the Prim Church!
OTOH
The fact that the RCC found 'SOMETHING' in NO WAY proves that that SOMETHING was in fact Primitive Christianity!
Saint Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) "We call this food Eucharist; ... the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus."
there is a Litany of Early Church Fathers who also defended the Truth of the Eucharist against those with heretical view. Our Lord guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail againt it!
If Jesus can do So many miracles, why is it SO hard to believe that HE can become Present to us physically in the bread (Eucharist?) HE CAN DO ANYTHING!! So as Catholics, we are blessed, not only do we receive HIM spiritually, but also physically!!! WE are the LUCKY ONES! WE SHOULD TAKE IT AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE!!!! IT IS FOR OUR BENEFIT!! ANYONE SAYING THE CONTRARY, ARE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND WILL BE BLESSED BY LEARNING ABOUT IT! Stay with the Faith, and take up for it!
Your claim is false and "we" do not deny His Word. Back up your comments with fact; what you are writing here is just mudslinging. On the contrary, we abide by it; "And whilst they were eating Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This IS MY BODY."
If anyone believes that Jesus can do miracles, and all HE did do, then why can't they believe that HE was the bread come down from heaven, and can actually be physically present to us in the Holy Eucharist????? How is that so hard to believe??
IS Jesus promising to DRINK His own Blood in heaven?
MT 26:29 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THE VINE until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Right, that's why I included verses 26 thru 28 from Matthew's Gospel passage. And yes, I've read verse 29 too... See verse 27-28 "And taking the chalice, he gave thanks to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
And, no, he's not promising to drink blood. Come on, really. Where do you get these ideas? *yawn*
AND in the next verse Jesus Himself calls it the "FRUIT of the VINE"
When I take a picture of my Mom & say this is my Mom you dont think that I came forth from a 6X8 piece of paper with coatings of chemicals on it, DO YOU?
Many protestants which have come home to the Church have been given the gift of faith. I think one needs to ask the Lord to reveal the truth and to help us accept it. Unless we ask the Lord in all Humility then we will remain blind and I am not just talking about non-catholics hear but all Christians.
Father, this is very informative. it helps a lot, even I have suffient knowledge about Eucharist I still need more of like this graphics and testimony to aid my faith. I'm only human and I continue to pray that we people will love Jesus more as we should....
Radbertus was the 1st to formulate the supposed "doctrine" in the 9TH century. The Fourth Lateran Council, (12TH ecumenical council) in 1215 introduced the term TRANSUBSTANTIATION
The EVOLUTION of RC so called "doctrine" is easy to see for those who have eyes.
Council of TRENT even had to FIX the DEFECTIVE language of Lateran IV
Here we see the church, entrusted with the teaching mission of Jesus, supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit in remaining faithful to true teaching disagreeing with one another and correcting the defective teaching!
I believe I heard somewhere that the consecrated host has been tested. Many experiments people have done with various catholic artifacts have converted scientists from atheism.
out of curiosity, has a consecrated host ever been checked by doctors to prove even to the most skeptical that it becomes actual flesh and blood? if so where would i find a written record of this?
God bless you brother, have a blessed Christmas.
88kmitchell 2 months ago in playlist Catholicism
Thank you, Father, for these wonderful presentations. If the commenters get ridiculous and out of hand, feel free to shut down all comments. The faithful will still find the presentations, and enjoy them. God bless you and our Church.
jmjsanfran 1 year ago
Everytime the Sacrifice of the Mass if offered we witness a Eucharistic miracle.
God bless †
ComeHomeCatholics 1 year ago 3
@ComeHomeCatholics Exactly
cheesemonkey1990 1 year ago
Actually it is the sacrifice of Calvary which is the mark of our salvation. Jesus instituted it and as we know if Satan is divided against himself he can not stand. As for indoctrinization: You are just as guilty, you are taught how to interperate the bible in a flawed man made way with flawed man made theology (Martin Luther). Bottom line: Protestantism is un-Biblical and you are too blind to see that.
cheesemonkey1990 2 years ago
Amen! Keep the faith burning my brothers and sisters!
MrJanvz 2 years ago 2
Hi there sniffy. I see we have bdplst over here, disguising himself as a secret agent and calling himself oamission. He forgot to make an omission of all his capital letters, so his disguise didn't work, poor bdplister!
Now at least we know that he did not get lost, or that the little old ladies he tried to sneak up on with his bull horn didn't turn around and give him a fatal whack with their umbrellas. To think that all this time we were worried that he was overcome by el swino!
jazz0685 2 years ago
helllo misster oamission
whhy donnt yoou likke catthollics? missis bassit iss a cattholic annd shhe iss a lott kinnder annd niccer to peeople thann wot yoou arre!!
yoou havve gott a cupp withh devvils onn it butt whhy will yoou nott shoow itt to uss??
i havve gott a cupp witth a team annd mister T annd yoou cann seee itt annytimme
sniffbutt01 2 years ago
FFI!!! You guys are totally awesome!!! I love this video!!! Ave Maria!
Kelvinlobo 2 years ago 2
Yeah Baby! Franciscan Friars rock!
PegsEP 2 years ago
bdplist,
I don't see the point to continue this discussion. I don't find it very edifying. If you are just interested in an argument then please start one elsewhere. I think you have adequately stated your position and given ample evidence that you are not receptive to any logical arguments or evidence to the contrary. So this is the end you are now blocked.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago 5
Thank you for blocking him.
There's been a group of Catholics who have been following this guy's activity for some time.
From the way bdplist is able to comment on multiple videos we figured that he is really "we".
Basically more than one person is using his account name for the sole purpose of slandering the Church.
bdplist doesn't mind getting into one VS. one since he's got a group of people to help him.
But we counter him where we find him.
In the Knowledge & Peace of Christ
spasjt
spasjt 2 years ago
Incidentally, the magisterial authority was given by Christ! The Catholic church has HIS mandata!
hammingdad1 2 years ago
Dear bdplist: WIth all due respect, you are sidestepping the afore mentioned scriptural texts with rather emotional (and illogical) arguments.
hammingdad1 2 years ago
Jn 21:25 not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1
Thess 2:13 Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12 guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
God bless you.
hammingdad1 2 years ago
HE not she guides into ALL TRUTH
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE will guide you into ALL truth
bdplist 2 years ago
How do you apply SOME to ALL?
Is this not ERROR?
2 PT 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are SOME things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And are the UNlearned & UNstable ALL outside your Church?
Arent you forcing your beliefs into the PLAIN TEXT?
bdplist 2 years ago
LOOK being unlearned or unstable or DULL of HEARing does not mean the scriptures "GET DISTORTED" the DISTORTION is inside the nature of the distortEE of which I believe you just might yourself be engaging in such
The unlearned unstable & DULL of Hearing are in nature "distorted" and force beliefs into the text at their own peril
bdplist 2 years ago
Dear bdplist: What is "biblios" was given to ALL Christians as a result of the Catholic Councils of Tunis and Carthage. It is a free gift! God's Word which thw Church safeguarded. She alone has the authority to interperet the bible. If youare stuck on the error of Sola Scriptora read: the following: (cont...)
hammingdad1 2 years ago
The Scriptures of the ROMAN Catholic Church were not determined until the 16th Century TRENT
She alone has authority?
Are you fond of making AUTHORATATIVE claims long before you have established ANY authority?
bdplist 2 years ago
Why does the wine become BLOOD, but in the immediate context of the NEXT STATEMENT, in verse 28 it becomes ACTUALLY & LITERALY WINE in verse 29?????
Is this some sort of reverse TRANS?
bdplist 2 years ago
What is interesting about this is if the negative argument is true, then the Holy Spirit would have to be considered incompetent in directing God's Church for almost 1500 years until NONBELIEF in the Eucharist began to become fashionable.
The Church claims no authority to invent dogma... just the authority to defend when doubts creep in.
When Jesus told the multitude "unless you eat my flesh..." many walked away. He did not say "hey wait... come back... I was using figurative speech"!
hammingdad1 2 years ago
I have an evangelical friend who used to make some of these same negative arguments I've seen here. Once he and I began to delve into the writings of the very early "Early Church Fathers", my friend began to admit that he had to abandon the false notion that belief in the Real Presence was a recent novelty. Quite the contrary he admitted!
Any serious reading of the Early Church Fathers reveals that the "People of the Way", later known as Kathos ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE this.
hammingdad1 2 years ago
I highly recommend that folks read the fathers. BUT I find that people just talk of actually reading they in fact just cut N paste fathers remarks taken sometimes even out of the immediate context of the surrounding sentences.
BY READING
ONE POINT immediately & clearly comes to the forefront
There absolutely is NO UNIVERSAL CONSENT of the fathers!
bdplist 2 years ago
St. Ignatius: "[heretics] abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ..."
St. Justin Martyr:"...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these;but...as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnated Jesus."
jmjss77 2 years ago
YAWN is right
What is the context of this statement. Who is Ignatius addressing, who are these heretics and what are their beliefs?
Why wouldnt they confess the FLESH in any manner?
bdplist 2 years ago
Is this "PROOF" of the UNIVERSAL CONSENT?
bdplist 2 years ago
St. Irenaeus: "He has declared the cup, a part of His creation, to be His Own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His Own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
St. Cyril: "He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body', who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood' who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?
Peace to you.
v=V
jmjss77 2 years ago
Please post a bunch of quotes of Fathers speaking specifically on the CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE
bdplist 2 years ago
Saint Cyril: "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ".
Please read the Church Fathers, and please read the Scriptures with an open heart. I will pray for you.
jmjss77 2 years ago
You forgot to even address how you go from BLOOD vs 28 to WINE vs 29!
bdplist 2 years ago
"I" don't go from blood to wine; Jesus does. And he continues to do so- every day at Holy Masses throughout the entire world through the annointed hands of Holy Catholic priests. He said it himself. I feel very sorry for you that you need to see everything or have "evidence" to believe. It's so simple, yet a mystery. Pray for faith and humility. See hammingdad's quote- St Peter- the Bible can be hard to understand and so we have the Church to solve disputes over meaning. Peace be with you.
jmjss77 2 years ago
@bdplist The "accidents" always remain the same, therefore it still is physically, chemically, atomically, WINE.
But the SUBSTANCE changes.
Jesus' spoken Words affect reality in that sense. You have to believe it.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
Is this the sumation of your "EVIDENCE" for a CHANGE in SUBSTANCE?
I must be glossing over the CHANGE portion. Perhaps you could point it out?
bdplist 2 years ago
"NO UNIVERSAL CONSENT of the fathers!" But that is why need the magesterium as well. Bible, Tradition (Fathers), and the Magesterium. These are the three pillars of the Church. When there is an argument among two great churchmen then the Magesterium sorts this out.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
The First Vatican Council & numerous decrees unequivocally declare that one MUST interpret the Scriptures by the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers
bdplist 2 years ago
If you are take the Fathers by themselves
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
hey, it's common internet parlance to not use caps when typing. it's universally considered a shout, which is how you are clearly intending to use all caps. bring this down three notches so 1) you can hear yourself and 2) you can get your point across with less adrenaline. intensity doesn't make your point any clearer.
dbonneville 2 years ago
Instead, what we teach is that the Popes and Councils are merely infallible, that if they did, in fact, attempt to make a binding doctrinal statement that did not agree with Christ's doctrine then God would prevent them from doing so. He would not correct deficiencies in style or clarity nor necessarily push them into action even if two groups holding differing opinions were arguing for centuries. Impeccability is proactive infallibility is merely preventative.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
Bdplist,
In general I would say that your basic misunderstanding is that you are assuming that infallibility means impeccability. If councils and Popes were impeccable then, indeed, there would be no room for discussion because their decrees would have come out perfectly on time at the beginning of the disputes or even before they started and they would perfectly foresee all future arguments and the wording would be perfect. Although God could have given the Popes this gift He did not.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
The discussion had neither to do with Infallibility nor Impeccability.
The subject was the doctrins of the Roman Church were NOT a continuation nor a establishment of Apostolic teachings but were developed by a long process of mens traditions substituted for God's ways
I find that many of the "truths" of the Catholic church never even EXISTED for CENTURIES Thus how could they be the Tradition which the Apostles passed down?
bdplist 2 years ago
By the way, bdlist, I do not see the point of your mocking tone and "LOL" and such. We prefer to keep the discussion on a more constructive, reverent and generally more Christian tone. Please refrain.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
That is fair
Some of the claims made for the RC just tickles my funny bone
bdplist 2 years ago
EVOLUTION OF ROMAN CATholicISM
"The whole tradition of venerating holy IMAGES gradually and naturally developed" Cath Encyc VII p667
The history of RC is one of FALLING farther & farther AWAY from the FAITH "ONCE DELIVERED" see book of Jude
bdplist 2 years ago
WAY TOO LATE 400 YRS TOO LATE - LOL
"At the END of the FIFTH CENTURY the Roman Church was completely organized" Cath Encyc IX p61
bdplist 2 years ago
CATholic sources admit EVOLUTION OF ROMAN CATholicISM occurred over a long period of time!
"The priesthood EVOLVED" CAT Encyc XII p 406 p415
"The Apostolic Fathers also abstain FROM ANY MENTION of a Christian priesthood" Cath Dict p692
CATholicism was an slowly evolving INVENTION!
bdplist 2 years ago
Priest Etymology: ME prest < OE preost (? with -o- by assoc. with profost, provost) < LL(Ec) presbyter, an elder < Gr presbyteros, elder, compar. of presbys, old, old man (in LGr(Ec), an elder). A priest is an elder a presbyter which is very Biblical.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
Way to do spiritual warfare. God bless you.
tjttzcspplt 2 years ago
When confronted with FACTS Roman CATholics get really quiet
bdplist 2 years ago
INVENTING a DOCTRINE
Radbertus was the 1st to formulate the doctrine in the 9TH century. The Fourth Lateran Council, (12TH ecumenical council) in 1215 introduced the term TRANSUBSTANTIATION
The SEVEN SACRAMENTAL system was not initiated till the 12TH century and was not a permanent part of RCC until Council of Florence 1439AD
How important could all this be, if it was MIA for over 1000 years?
The EVOLUTION of RC doctrine is easy to see for those who have eyes.
bdplist 2 years ago
Interesting how people ignore most church history and then make such grand claims.
If the 7 sacraments were invented in the 12th century, then why do all the Eastern Churches have all 7 too, in lands that were never part of the Roman Empire and were separated from the Roman Church for centuries beforehand, but all have apostolic continuity.
bagcbag 2 years ago
It was the CATholic Encyclopedia that has this information
Why would they say such things?
bdplist 2 years ago
You clearly misreading or misinterpreting what it says... all the ancient Apostolic churches share the same basic beliefs about Creed, Sacraments, Mass, Morals, etc... The understanding of these things developed, but not the reality. It is clear that the early Christians of the first centuries celebrated a Mass similar to the one we still celebrate now.
bagcbag 2 years ago
What is CLEAR is that you have been indoctrinated.
Stop being ignorant it is well known there were centuries of rancor & dispute within the ranks of the ROMAN church till the council of TRENT somewhat settled the issue of Trans or consub
bdplist 2 years ago
Discussion about theological details is not necessarily rancor... and I was trying to say that ALL the ancient Churches that have apostolic roots agree on this, NOT "just" Rome... most were separate from for about 1500 years now and they do not accept Trent, etc, yet they have 7 Sacraments... you are ignoring my argument and going back to your own.
bagcbag 2 years ago
If there were 7 sacraments in the ROMAN Church from the beginning What in the world was the council doing "discussing" the NUMBER of sacraments SIXTEEN CENTURIES LATER?
FACTS are stubborn things ROMANism is more PLIABLE!
"Council of Trent defined that the SEVEN SACRAMENTS of the new law were instituted by Christ This settles the question of fact for all CATholics" Cath Encyc XIII p298
WHY any "QUESTION" at all???
Who was questioning?
Why 16 centuries of questions?
bdplist 2 years ago
Protestants were questioning, so there were need for definitive answers at that time. You misunderstand Catholic terminology and practice. Just as Christ was truly God and Man before a Council defined an answer to questions in that century, so also there were 7 Sacraments before another Council of Apostolic Successors who authoritatively answered another set of questions so much later.
bagcbag 2 years ago
Why does a CATholisc source say there were only TWO or THREE RITES until the FOURTH CENTURY?
Stop with the fables
bdplist 2 years ago
Protestants were questioning?
Make up whatever comes to mind.
Your claim is pure NON SENSE
NOTICE the result of TRENT NUMBERING the rites of the sacraments at SEVEN
"This settles the question of fact for ALL CATholics"
It settled it for CATlics
bdplist 2 years ago
2 or 3 rites?
"In tracing the history of the NUMERATION within the Church, we may distinguish four different stages. Till about the end of the fourth century, we find usually two, and sometimes three rites placed together as sacraments" Cath Dict p735
U were making that stuff up U had no proff just baseless claims
bdplist 2 years ago
I make nothing up. Facts are truly important. And you keep referring to the Roman Church when I keep pointing to the witness of the other Ancient Churches. Every ancient Church that exists today from the first Millennium has apostolic succession, has the Eucharistic Liturgy (Mass), has 7 Sacraments, and has an understanding of the sacramental nature of the Church and the reality of the Communion of Saints. This unity of belief is amazing considering that we have been divided for so long.
bagcbag 2 years ago
I am not AMAZED except for the INdoctrination that you display
bdplist 2 years ago
WELL?
bdplist 2 years ago
You still have not considered and responded to my points, I'm waiting for you. Read the 2 posts (Protestants were questioning... and I make nothing up...) and think about what I'm saying there. And if you can discuss those points, then we can continue.
bagcbag 2 years ago
sixteen centuries of questions is way too long for "protestants"
bdplist 2 years ago
bdplist,
Where do you see "CLEAR" indoctrination here? Babcbag made a clear statement that all the Apostolic Churches have the Seven Sacraments. If you are not able address the facts then please leave the discussion. At the very least refrain from ad hominum attacks, "ignorant" and such.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
The ROMAN CATHOLIC source CATHOLIC DICTIONARY
says that till the FOURTH Century there were sometimes 2 sometimes 3 sacraments
bdplist 2 years ago
AFA "ignorant"
Are you unfamiliar with Paul the Apostle?
Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
bdplist 2 years ago
bdplist,
Infallibility only refers to the teaching on faith and morals not to the clarity or erudition of the language of those proclamations.
franciscanfriars 2 years ago
So you are saying the RC doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION is not of the "FAITH" & the ecumenical council was not pronouncing on FAITH? LOL
bdplist 2 years ago
Council of TRENT even had to FIX the DEFECTIVE language of Lateran IV
Here we see the church, entrusted with the teaching mission of Jesus, supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit in remaining faithful to true teaching disagreeing with one another and correcting the defective teaching!
We see Trent correcting the ERROR of Lateran IV!
bdplist 2 years ago
It was not until AFTER 1551 that the "real presence" became common in RC theology
How is it that centuries of dispute finally brings forth a "REAL" presence?
Why did it take another 10 years XXI 1562 to determine that communion from the Chalace is not necessary for Salvation?
Why did the next THREE centuries bring forth one theory after another on whether it is REAL or mystical immutation & of oblation? Why did the Council FAIL to bring forth the INFALLIBLE answers to this DILEMA?
bdplist 2 years ago
I think you need to go right to the beginning and follow it through.
1. Jesus said it , I believe Him.
2. the disciples who protested (the first protestants) refused to accept this doctrine (Eucharist) from Jesus and they left Him.
3. The Apostles believed though one didn't.
4. Saint Paul Believed,
5. The Chruch Fathers believed and many of them with the faithful gave their lives for this belief! (e.g. Saint Justin Martyr defended the truth about the Eucharist and was beheaded!)
We to believe.
HolyCatholicApostoli 2 years ago
2. those that left Him were never with Him
If you simply bothered to read the text you would find that they were UNbelievers from the start. They were never His, He lost NONE
I guess this shows you are getting such claims from sources other than the Holy Scriptures!
bdplist 2 years ago
5. TRANSUBSTANTIATION
I was wondering just how do the PRE & post-nicean fathers support a dogma that was not invented till the NINTH CENTURY?
ANS?_________
bdplist 2 years ago
LOL 1,2,3,4,5
RC are fond of immediately claiming victory & exhorting folks to admit the truth of the claims way too early in the conversation as NO PROOF has yet been offered. So too RC are very fond of entirely evading the nexus of any argument They therefore yield the very point being asserted and is admission of it's indefensibility!
bdplist 2 years ago
3. Literalistic transubstantiation would imply Judas was a God-eating cannibalistic infidel who physically ate God IN the flesh and drank the blood of Jesus, CONSUMED God in whole- Body Soul & Spirit, Who had as then not yet died. Jesus would then (against His Own Word Lev 26:29 & De 28:53) have had to have given a piece of His flesh and siphoned off some of His blood for Judas's FAITHLESS consumption thereof!
Judas ATE & went right to HELL!
bdplist 2 years ago
And the "concept" (we are supposed to believe is TRUTH) was DISPUTED & DEBATED for CENTURIES in the RCC!
What took so long & what of the Magesterium?
The fact that MANY RCC beliefs were not found for so long proves conclusively they were never previously established beliefs in the RCC and thus the RCC did NOT establish the Prim Church!
OTOH
The fact that the RCC found 'SOMETHING' in NO WAY proves that that SOMETHING was in fact Primitive Christianity!
bdplist 2 years ago
Saint Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) "We call this food Eucharist; ... the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus."
there is a Litany of Early Church Fathers who also defended the Truth of the Eucharist against those with heretical view. Our Lord guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail againt it!
HolyCatholicApostoli 2 years ago
If Jesus can do So many miracles, why is it SO hard to believe that HE can become Present to us physically in the bread (Eucharist?) HE CAN DO ANYTHING!! So as Catholics, we are blessed, not only do we receive HIM spiritually, but also physically!!! WE are the LUCKY ONES! WE SHOULD TAKE IT AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE!!!! IT IS FOR OUR BENEFIT!! ANYONE SAYING THE CONTRARY, ARE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND WILL BE BLESSED BY LEARNING ABOUT IT! Stay with the Faith, and take up for it!
keepsmyattention 2 years ago
He can NOT deny His word like you CATholics do all the time...
bdplist 2 years ago
Your claim is false and "we" do not deny His Word. Back up your comments with fact; what you are writing here is just mudslinging. On the contrary, we abide by it; "And whilst they were eating Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This IS MY BODY."
btw, what's with the "CAT"??
jmjss77 2 years ago
If anyone believes that Jesus can do miracles, and all HE did do, then why can't they believe that HE was the bread come down from heaven, and can actually be physically present to us in the Holy Eucharist????? How is that so hard to believe??
If YOU believe!
keepsmyattention 2 years ago
What should I believe God's HOLY Word or you?
bdplist 2 years ago
God's Holy Word, of course; read Mt 26:26-28.
v=V
jmjss77 2 years ago
AND He took the what? Blood? nope....
UH OH!
MT 26:27 "And he took the CUP"
IS Jesus promising to DRINK His own Blood in heaven?
MT 26:29 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THE VINE until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Bible clearly calls it the CUP
Jesus clearly calls it "FRUIT OF THE VINE"
NOT BLOOD!
bdplist 2 years ago
Right, that's why I included verses 26 thru 28 from Matthew's Gospel passage. And yes, I've read verse 29 too... See verse 27-28 "And taking the chalice, he gave thanks to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
And, no, he's not promising to drink blood. Come on, really. Where do you get these ideas? *yawn*
jmjss77 2 years ago
taking the BLOOD? no "taking the chalice"
AND in the next verse Jesus Himself calls it the "FRUIT of the VINE"
When I take a picture of my Mom & say this is my Mom you dont think that I came forth from a 6X8 piece of paper with coatings of chemicals on it, DO YOU?
bdplist 2 years ago
To be consistent if verse 28 is about BLOOD please explain why verse 29 IS NOT about BLOOD!
Because you say so is not a good reason nor is it consistent with your private interpretation of verse 28
Why the inconsistency?
bdplist 2 years ago
Pride and lack of Humility.
Many protestants which have come home to the Church have been given the gift of faith. I think one needs to ask the Lord to reveal the truth and to help us accept it. Unless we ask the Lord in all Humility then we will remain blind and I am not just talking about non-catholics hear but all Christians.
HolyCatholicApostoli 2 years ago
PROTESTants are just SHIZMATIC CATholics
They were called REFORMERS since they attempted to REFORM Rome
They are REFORMed CATholics who tried to clean up Rome
What you should do is actually read the scriptures instead of following your INdoctrinators
"We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides LOYOLA
bdplist 2 years ago
This is a great video guys.
Catholicisgood 3 years ago
Father, this is very informative. it helps a lot, even I have suffient knowledge about Eucharist I still need more of like this graphics and testimony to aid my faith. I'm only human and I continue to pray that we people will love Jesus more as we should....
missbellestar 3 years ago
The "real presence" is a Fable invented in the 9th century
bdplist 3 years ago
proof please! I think it is obvious that the apostles till now believe.
HolyCatholicApostoli 2 years ago
INVENTING a "DOCTRINE"
Radbertus was the 1st to formulate the supposed "doctrine" in the 9TH century. The Fourth Lateran Council, (12TH ecumenical council) in 1215 introduced the term TRANSUBSTANTIATION
The EVOLUTION of RC so called "doctrine" is easy to see for those who have eyes.
bdplist 2 years ago
Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a FIGURATIVE sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi)
After Lateran IV there was centuries of RANCOR INFIGHTING & DEBATE over Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation inside the RCC
Why couldn't Lateran IV settle all this AFA Eucharist?
Why couldn't Trent settle the Eucharist doctrine????
The issue is still not settled Latin or vulgar which for you?
RCC claims dont match History!
bdplist 2 years ago
Council of TRENT even had to FIX the DEFECTIVE language of Lateran IV
Here we see the church, entrusted with the teaching mission of Jesus, supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit in remaining faithful to true teaching disagreeing with one another and correcting the defective teaching!
We see Trent correcting the ERROR of Lateran IV!
Who dropped the ball?
bdplist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hebrews 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins
bdplist 3 years ago
4:46 did he say corpus CRISPY???? lol
realshiz08 3 years ago
Um, no. He would have said Corpus Christi. (pronounced like Corpus Christi, Texas) This translates into "Body of Christ" It is a Catholic feast day.
The words of consecration in Latin are "Hoc est enim Corpus meum." This translates into "This is my Body."
The word Hoc is where the 'magical' term Hocus Pocus came from. The phrase Hocus Pocus makes fun of the Catholic words of consecration.
sincerely,
The Latin Enthusiast and History Buff
ck1n2 3 years ago
no he studdered and said corpus crispy. wasnt ment to be offencive, if it was taken that way i apologise.
realshiz08 3 years ago
I believe I heard somewhere that the consecrated host has been tested. Many experiments people have done with various catholic artifacts have converted scientists from atheism.
NathanSifu 3 years ago
out of curiosity, has a consecrated host ever been checked by doctors to prove even to the most skeptical that it becomes actual flesh and blood? if so where would i find a written record of this?
medievalman86 3 years ago
Thanks for all the understandable explanations of the entire series. God bless you!
By the way a question: who is the artist of the picture of Jesus and Mary, at the beginning of the video?
zimra21 3 years ago
Ave Maria!
The name of the artist is William Adolphe Bougereau. Thanks for watching. God Bless.
franciscanfriars 3 years ago